Tag Archives: behavior

May 21st has come and gone, yet we are all still here. Are you as shocked as I am? OK, maybe I’m not really surprised that another “Judgment day,” prophesied by a kooky religious leader, has come and gone with little interruption to my usual Saturday morning routine of Looney Tunes and Captain Crunch. What does seem a mystery, however, is why on earth Harold Camping, the self proclaimed professor of Bible truth, head of Family Radio, a multimillion-dollar Christian organization, and author of this nonsense is sticking to his story that last Saturday truly was the beginning of the end.

“Judgment Day on May 21 did come, “ but in a more spiritual sense, Camping proclaimed in a recent article published on christianpost.com.

Camping further stated that his previous end-times prophecies where also correct, but again it was in a spiritual sense. The newest new deal is that, according to Camping, Judgment Day is more like five months of Judgment days. Apparently, there are so many of us in need of judgment, his god won’t be able to finish the trials until October 21st, the day Camping now predicts for the rapture, when the chosen go with Jesus, and the rest of us, and the world, will make like John Edwards and cross over, but in a fiery blaze of pain and anguish.

In light of the work of Festinger and his infiltration of a doomsday-cult back in the 50s, as was eloquently discussed by Dr. Duke in his resent post, there is most definitely a case for cognitive dissonance at work in the wake of this failed prophecy. While the dissonance might not lie with Camping per se, his new prophecy is likely intended to combat the growing dissonance among his flock. It would seem that the observation made by Prus (1976) who noted that religious groups, and especially ones who make wild claims about end times, must come up with cleaver ways to ease their followers dissonance if they are to maintain and expand their ranks.

In the end, we can be sure that there is nothing shocking about an old quack distracting his followers with smoke, mirrors and promises. And those followers will likely eat it up. They simply have too much of their time, money and selves invested to turn back now.

Recently, an uproar in the media erupted after J. Crew put out an online ad featuring Jenna Lyons and her young son. The picture portrays a loving mother and son smiling and caring on—they seem like a lovely pair. Some however, like Fox News contributor and hack psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, only saw the Devil in the details. Rather than seeing it for what it is—a warm expression of a happy family—all he could see is that the young lad has neon pink nail polish. Ablow, in his reaction to the piece stated that “it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affect by your ‘innocent’ pleasure.”

Boggling my mind the most is the fact that this ignorant statement comes from a psychiatrist, a professional who should be up on the literature of gender-role and LGBT socialization and their outcomes. Rather than getting in to the nuts and bolts of gender development (this is not an undergraduate development course), I do what to tackle his suggestion that a lack of strict adherence to sexual and gender roles lead to negative psychological outcomes. What he seems to have forgotten is that any negative outcomes associated with LGBT folks is not because of who they are, it is because of the lack of acceptance from their families and other ignorant fools who cannot seems to realize that their own beliefs are not shared by others. In fact, recent evidence presented by Doctors Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz and Sanchez (2010) in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatirc Nursing, suggests that when LGBT youths are respected and accepted by their families, positive outcomes are predicted. They can expect to have higher self-esteem and general health. They are also less likely to experience depression, substance abuse and thoughts of suicide.

What is ironic about this whole thing is that the outcomes Dr. Ablow predicts come about because of intolerant behavior like Dr. Ablow’s. God save the child that comes from Dr. Ablow’s loins that happens to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgendered—hopefully he will have set aside money for their psychotherapy to un-warp any damage his intolerant behavior might cause.

On several occasions now, I’ve reported on some of the weird laws and customs I’ve witnessed since moving to Pennsylvania from Oregon. Generally, these reports have touched on the unnecessary restriction of alcohol sales (no wine in grocery stores, etc). Since then, an even more bizarre practice of Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies has come to my attention. Apparently, Pennsylvania cops across the state have been ticketing people with fines and potential jail time for “potty” language or otherwise using obscene gestures. Can you believe this? I’ve seen Lockup on MSNBC. I cannot imagine being put in the slammer with those animals over a few choice turns of phrase.

Luckily, as part of a federal free-speech lawsuit settlement, Pennsylvania law enforcement agents have agreed to indefinitely suspend ticketing people for using profanity in all its forms. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a Pennsylvania woman who was cited after giving her un-censored views to an inconsiderate motorcyclist. When reporting the incident in intimate details to the police, rather than confronting the motorcyclist, the officer slapped the women with a $300 fine carrying with it a possible 90-day incarceration sentence. Over 700 similar citations where issued across the state in the span of a year. Since the courts decision, however, no longer will this brutality stand, man!

Personally, as a devoted Carlinist and moral relativist, I believe this decision marks a win for the sane. The fact that Pennsylvania’s “best and brightest” got away with punishing colorful-language users as a means of enforcing some moral belief system is sickening and offensive. Even now I want to express my offense with a string of expletive adjectives. While my “faith” allows me to use all manner of words, phrases and gestures to express myself, academic register and this blog does not, as has recently come to my attention.

It’s also probably true that like many of the good citizens of Pennsylvania, in the past I might have used a few lewd words or, perhaps, expressed myself with vulgar means, which may not live up to the moral standards of the “best and brightest.” Though I stand by my previous remarks and believe in public free speech, I also believe that employers have the right to request that their associates (in this case volunteers) practice within reasonable guidelines of refinement.

In addition to this belief, and my attempt to be a “swell guy” and “play nice” with others, my willingness to compromise and go along with the request to curtail my repertoire of coarse words is also rooted in classic research by Bostrom, Baseheart and Rossiter (1973) who examined the effects of profanity in persuasive communication. Interestingly, they found that people who used profanity where no better at persuading listeners than those who didn’t. On the other hand, they were no worse. Still, those who do use profanity where seen as less credible. Weird right?

As of now, I have been unable to find a follow-up to this study to see if these conclusions have changed in the last 38 years (I would be willing to guess that they have in some respects). Nevertheless, I will assume the findings of this study represent the state-of-the-art conclusion about profanity: naughty language equals diminished credibility. So in the spirit of cooperation with my editor and a desire to have a credible ethos, I will “clean up my act” and try really, really hard not to offend our academic benefactors and reasonable readers with bawdy language, even when my emotions run high. Instead, hopefully I can figure out clever euphemisms to express my cheeky sense of humor. Until then, I will save my profanities for Pennsylvania law-enforcement officers. As the law dictates, they have to take it–even if they don’t like it–while you do not.

Just after the Rwanda genocide broke out in 1994, white expatriates were speedily evacuated from the place. Adam Jones (2006) wrote of a video record at the Caraes psychiatric Hospital in Ndera Kigali showing white individuals being evacuated while Hutus were almost outside the gates, and the Tutsis begged the military men for protection. One soldier yelled, “Solve your problems yourselves!”

The UN Genocide Convention has defined genocide as “acts committed with the intent to destroy in part or whole a national, ethnic racial or religious group as such.” Staub (2000) provides the social context which makes genocide of one group by another likely—difficult life conditions and group conflict. Cultural differences also come to play such as blind respect for authority, inflexible stratification within classes, and a history of devaluation in a group.

Not all members of the dominant group become perpetrators. There were the ‘ordinary Germans’ who did nothing while the Holocaust happened, while there were also countless Germans who defied authority and managed to rescue Jewish families in peril. In a genocide setting, there are the perpetrators, bystanders and rescuers. These categories can also be fluid, as noted by Monroe, when constant bystanders turn into rescuers, or when perpetrators who have engaged in massacres, rescue an individual from the other group. Monroe defines six critical aspects gathered from summaries of reports of these three groups which play a part in the role a group or individual makes: self image, personal suffering, identity, relational identity, integration of values with the individual’s sense of self, and a cognitive classification of the other. Perpetrators may perceive of themselves as victims and justify causing harm to the other group. Bystanders and perpetrators may hold greater value for community, and authority, rather than self-assertion. Personal suffering may also cause a group or an individual to empathize with the aggrieved group, but it may also heighten fear and defensiveness. While cultural and social aspects are important in determining attitudes and behavior, self images can also determine if people will act or remain passive in the face of genocide. Individuals who feel they have control over the situation may be forced to do something about it, as opposed to bystanders who, even if they also empathize with the aggrieved group, may feel helpless over the situation.

Jones A. (2006). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction

Monroe K. R. (2008). Cracking the Code of Genocide: The Moral Psychology of Rescuers, Bystanders, and Nazis during the Holocaust

Think Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood, Jennifer Aniston and John Mayer – just few of celebrity pairs that have gotten on and off, breaking up, then getting back again, sometimes extending the cycle to the point where we are left guessing as to their future romantic plans. On and off relationships are not uncommon. A study by Dailey et al sought to provide a baseline description of on-off relationships and their differences with noncyclical relationships, or relationships that end and do not renew. Factors such as relational development and dissolution, reasons and initiators for dissolution of relationship were looked at. The study revealed the commonality of these kinds of relationships among the participants. Participants who have been in on and off relationships were less likely to report positive characteristics of the initial stages of their relationships. Then why go back to such a relationship if that is so? The researchers also noted that while most breakups were unilateral / non mutual, there was an even higher percentage of on-off relationships that were non mutual, compared to noncyclical relationships. It is possible that one partner would still be interested in instigating reconciliation. Noncyclical partners also reported greater use of mutual disintegration to end a relationship, whereas on-off partners often used methods that were more unclear, such as the “Let’s take a break” excuse. Such method may increase uncertainty whether the relationship is merely ‘on break’ or if it has been terminated.

Several recommendations include the need to address internal factors in the relationships, and the need for certainty, for both partners to be explicit in their desires to continue or end a relationship.

Celebrity Couples Who Separate and Reunite

On-again/off-again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Dailey et al (2009). Personal Relationships

I’m currently addicted to the Discovery Channel show Most Evil where Columbia University forensic scientist Michael Stone plots the most infamous serial killers and so called evil people on a 22 point Scale of Evil. I tried to plot several people I knew, former friends and such, but compared to John Wayne Gacy, the famous clown serial killer, or Jim Jones, the cult leader who ordered mass suicide of hundreds of people they looked far too gentle and meek.

Evil in human nature seems to be one of the more attractive subjects in psychology. We have been enlightened by the studies of Zimbardo, Milgram and Asch, showing for instance how good people can turn evil through pressures of conformity, obedience and other dispositional factors. While Michael Stone rated psychopathic tendencies and engaging in psychopathic behavior, free of remorse as being more evil, Alford’s interviews among several participants showed that the concept of evil was highly privatized. Even Alford was surprised to hear participants associate evil with scary dreams, feelings of fear and doom. Evil was described mostly as a threat or a feeling of obliteration of the self.

Interesting about the study is the use of two groups for participants: free informants and prison inmates. While both groups came to the similar conclusions regarding evil – such as Adolf Eichmann was not evil, the reasoning behind conclusions were dissimilar, at least on the surface. Free informants were likelier to answer that Eichmann was just part of the system, while prison inmates were more likely to use the Hobbesian argument that the world is a war of everyone against everyone else. On a deeper analysis, Alford came to conclude that both reasoning amounted to the same idea – that the idea that someone would be killed for not killing is only an extension of the Hobbesian idea. Alford comes to conclude that a basic understanding of evil needs to address these issues, disturbing as they may be.

22 Point Scale of Evil

Most Evil

Alford, C. F. (1997). A Political Psychology of Evil. Political Psychology

Pop culture is rife with stories of people who blame their negative childhood experiences for their incapacity to stay within relationships or marriages, from the fictional serial killer Dexter who felt it impossible to connect to anyone to Jennifer Aniston’s announcement that her experience of her parents’ divorce made her wary of interpersonal intimacy. But are these mere pop psychology incarnations or are children who experienced traumas any likelier to experience certain marital troubles as adults?

Whisman’s (2006) study on childhood traumas looked at seven different childhood traumas: physical abuse, rape, sexual molestation, serious physical attack, experiences of being threatened with a weapon, life threatening accident, and natural disasters; and the effect of these on marital disruption and marital satisfaction. Physical abuse, rape, and sexual molestation were associated with higher probability of marital dissolution. Lower marital satisfaction was associated with individuals who had experienced rape or sexual molestation. Traumas with assaultive violence, or those where another person directly harmed the child were more likely to be associated with marital disruption and dissatisfaction, as these are seen to be more likely to lead to attachment insecurity (characterized by avoidance, lack of trust) which may then lead to lower marital stability.